GRAY, GORDON VS. LANDERS, KEVIN et al
| Case Identifier | Osage OK — SC-2008-00285 Monitor this case |
|---|---|
| Type of Case | Small Claims Cases in which the monetary relief is less than $6,000 |
| Date Filed | 12/23/2008 |
| Amount Owed | $0.00 (as of 04/03/2026 10:26am) |
| Plaintiff | GRAY, GORDON of Tulsa OK | Monitor this person |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | LANDERS, KEVIN of Morristown TN | Monitor this person |
| Defendant | ROTARY RESURRECTION of Morristown TN | Monitor this person |
| Attorney | PILKINGTON, GILBERT J, JR of Tulsa OK | |
| Judge | KANE, M JOHN | |
| Date | Description | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 12/23/2008 | AFFIDAVIT/ORDER | $137.00 |
| (Entry with fee only) | $10.00 | |
| 10% OF CAMA | $1.00 | |
| (Entry with fee only) | $6.00 | |
| (Entry with fee only) | $2.00 | |
| AFFIDAVIT/ORDER ISSUED BY CERT MAIL 7007 2680 0002 0717 8737 | $10.00 | |
| 01/20/2009 | CM JUDGE KANE MATTER COMES ON FOR SHOW CAUSE. PLFT APPEARS. COURT ORDERS NO SERVICE, PLFT TO REISSUE. | |
| 01/20/2009 | CT MINUTE AND/OR JUDGMENT | |
| 01/20/2009 | ALIAS AFFIDAVIT/ORDER ISSUED TO HAMBLBN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, 510 ALLISON ST., MORRISTOWN, TN 37814 423-586-3781 | $50.00 |
| 01/20/2009 | CERTIFIED LETTER 7007 2680 0002 0717 8737 RETURNED BY USPS 7007 2680 0002 0717 8737 MARKED "RETURN TO SENDER UNCLAIMED, UNABLE TO FORWARD | |
| 01/30/2009 | ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT/ORDER RETURNED BY HAMBLEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE - DEFT SERVED BY SERVING MRS KEVIN LANDERS. MR LANDERS WAS NOT AT HOME. | |
| 02/11/2009 | ENTRY OF APPEARANCE - G PILKINGTON JR FOR DEFT | |
| 02/17/2009 | CM JUDGE KANE MATTER COMES ON FOR SHOW CAUSE. PLFT APPEARS PRO SE; DEFT APPEARS BY COUNSEL G PILKINGTON. COURT ORDERS SERVICE IS GOOD. COURT ORDERS JURISDICTION AND VENUE OBJECTED TO BY SPECIALLY APPEARING DEF. HEARING ON APPLICATION OF ANY PARTY. | |
| 02/17/2009 | CT MINUTE AND/OR JUDGMENT | |
| 02/17/2009 | DEFT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON AND IMPROPER VENUE. | |
| 02/17/2009 | AFFIDAVIT OF KEVIN LANDERS | |
| 03/23/2009 | ORDER SETTING HEARING | |
| 04/06/2009 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (NO SASE INCLUDED TO MAIL FILE STAMP COPY) | |
| 04/21/2009 | TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING HRG HELD ON 2-17-09 | |
| 04/21/2009 | NOTICE OF FILING | |
| 04/23/2009 | MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE | |
| 05/01/2009 | DEFT'S RESPONSE TO PLFT'S BRIEF/NOTES - (4-23-09) | |
| 05/01/2009 | CM JUDGE KANE MATTER COMES ON FOR RULING, AND THE COURT NOTES THAT PLFT HAS SOUGHT LEAVE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL NEWLY ACQUIRED EVIDENCE. THE MOTION (FILED 4-23-09) DOES NOT INDICATE THAT DEFT'S COUNSEL HAS BEEN SUPPLIED A COPY. A COPY OF THE MOTION IS TRANSMITTED WITH THIS ORDER, AND DEFT MAY RESPOND TO THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON OR BEFORE MAY 15, 2009. THE COURT EXPECTS TO RULE UPON THE MOTION THEREAFTER WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. THE COURT INTENDS TO TAKE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: 1) GRANT THE MOTION AND SIMPLY ADD THE TENDERED EVIDENCE TO THE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED EVIDENCE. 2) GRANT THE MOTION AND CONVENE AN ADDITIONAL HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING DEFT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PLFT REGARDING THE PROPOSED EXHIBITS. 3) DENY THE MOTION AND RULE UPON THE EVIDENCE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED. 4) RECEIVE SUGGESTIONS FOR ANY OTHER RESOLUTION OF THE PENDING MOTION. SO ORDERED. | |
| 05/01/2009 | CT MINUTE AND/OR JUDGMENT | |
| 05/15/2009 | DEFT'S RESPONSE TO PLFT'S BRIEF/NOTES PRESENTED TO THE COURT | |
| 05/15/2009 | DEFT'S OBJECTION TO PLFT'S MOTION FOR LEASE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE | |
| 05/20/2009 | CM JUDGE KANE MATTER COMES ON FOR RULING, AND THE COURT NOTES THAT PLFT HAS SOUGHT LEAVE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL NEWLY ACQUIRED EVIDENCE. ON 5-15-09 THE DEFT OBJECTED. THE COURT IS SYMPATHIC TO DEFT'S OBSERVATION THAT THE TENDERED DOCUMENTS MAY NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, BUT THE MATTER IS A SMALL CLAIMS PROCEEEDINGS. SUCH HEARINGS AND DISPOSITION ARE BY STATUTE INFORMAL, WITH THE STATED LEGISLATIVE OBJECTIVE OF DISPENSING SPEEDY JUSTICE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 12 OKLA.STAT.ANN1761. ALL EVIDENCE NOT PREVIOUSLY DENIED ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE BY THE COURT. THE COURT FINDS THAT IT HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON OF THE DEFT. THE COURT FINDS THAT VENUE IS PROPER IN OSAGE COUNTY, OKLAHOMA, AS THE PLFT ALLEGES THAT GOODS NOT COMPLYING TO THE CONTRACT WERE DELIVERED TO THIS COUNTY. CONSOLIDATED FUEL CO VS GUNN, 213 P. 750 (OKLA. 1923) TRIAL ON THE MERITS SHALL PROCEED ON JUNE 2, 2009 AT 9:00 AM WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE. SO ORDERED | |
| 05/21/2009 | CT MINUTE AND/OR JUDGMENT | |
| 05/29/2009 | MOTION FOR CONT. OF HRG. | |
| 05/29/2009 | DEFTS UNOPPOSED ORDER ON MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE | |
| 06/02/2009 | CM JUDGE KANE MATTER COMES ON FOR SHOW CAUSE. COURT ORDERS CASE CONTINUED TO THE 23 DAY OF JUNE, 2009, AT 9:00 A.M. | |
| 06/03/2009 | CT MINUTE AND/OR JUDGMENT | |
| 06/04/2009 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (UNOPPOSED ORDER ON MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE) | |
| 06/26/2009 | CM JUDGE KANE THE COURT RULES UPON MATTERS PREVIOUSLY TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. AT TRIAL, BOTH SIDES PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF HIS RESPECTIVE POSITION, EMPLOYING TESTIMONY, DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE, EXPERT WITNESSES, PHOTOGRAPHS, ILLUSTRATIONS, TREATISES, AND OTHER MATERIALS. PLFT SEEKS $5,990.38 FROM DEFT, PLUS THE COSTS OF THIS ACTION. DEFT DENIES HE OWES THE PLFT ANYTHING. THE COURT FINDS THE DEFT (SELLER) DID NOT PROVIDE THE PLFT (BUYER) WITH THE GOODS DESCRIBED IN THE OFFERING (A 93-95 "THIRD GENERATION" ENGINE WITH TURBO ROTOR HOUSINGS). SELLER AGREED THAT THE ROTOR HOUSINGS WERE NOT 93-95 STYLE TURBO HOUSINGS, BUT IN FACT WERE THE EARLIER GENERATION OF ENGINES, 89-91 NON-TURBO SERIES OF ENGINES. SELLER SUGGESTS THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN THE TWO TYPES OF HOUSINGS WERE INSIGNIFICANT, AND THAT THE "OLDER" VERSION WAS ACTUALLY A BETTER PRODUCT IN HIS OPINION, SELLER ADMITTED THAT IN ORDER TO GET THE OLDER VERSION OF ROTOR HOUSING TO WORK HE HAD TO MODIFY THE EXHAUST SLEEVE, WHICH IS THE VERY PART THAT BUYER SUGESTS HAS NOW FAILED. SELLER'S OWN EXPERT WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED PARTS SUBSTUTION WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF THE CUSTOMER. NO SUCH DISCLOSURE OR CONSENT WAS OBTAINED HEREIN. EVERY CONTRACT HAS AN IMPLIED DUTY OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING. 12AOKLA.STAT..AN. 1-203. SELLER BREACH THIS DUTY WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE MATERIAL FACT THAT THE "WRONG" ROTOR HOUSING WERE INSTALLED ON THE ENGINE. "GOOD FAITH" MEANS HONESTY IN FACT IN THE CONDUCT OR TRANSACTION CONCERNED; THE BUYER IS ENTITLED TO GET WHAT HE PAID FOR. MURRAY V. D&J MOTOR CO.,INC., 1998 OK CIV APP 69. IN THIS CASE, BUYER DID NOT ET WHAT HE PAID FOR. BUYER IS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR FAILING TO RECEIVE FROM SELLER THE GOODS WHICH WERE OFFERED, BUT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO A COMPLETE REFUND. IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, A BUYER MAY, AFTER-THE-FACT, EVOKE HIS EARLIER ACCEPTANCE OF GOODS: "REVOCATION OF ACCEPTANCE MUST OCCUR WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE BUYER DISCOVERS OR SHOULD HAVE DISCOVERED THE GROUND FOR IT AND BEFORE ANY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN CONDITION OF THE GOODS WHICH IS NOT CAUSED BY THEIR OWN DEFECTS. IT IS NOT EFFECTIVE UNTIL THE BUYER NOTIFIES THE SELLER OF IT" 12A OKLA.STAT.ANN. IN THE PRESENT CASE, BUYER DID NOTIFY SELLER OF HE PROBLEM WITH THE ROTOR HOUSING UPON DISCOVERY OF THE NONCONFORMING NATURE OF THE PRODUCT, BUT ONLY AFTER YEARS OF USE AND EIGHT THOUSAND MILES OF DRIVING. THIS LATE DISCOVERY WAS CERTAINLY THROUGH NO FAULT OF HE BUYER, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT UNDER THE ABOVE-CITED STATUE, THE ENGINE WAS NOT IN SUBSTANTIALLU THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN ELIVERED, EVEN IGNORING THE SLEEVE DAMAGE WHICH BUYER ASSERTS OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF THE PRODUCT'S NONCONFORMITY. THE COURT FINDS FOR THE PLFT IN THE SUM OF $3,000.00, WHICH THE COURT FINDS TO BE THE SUM NECESSARY FOR THE PLFT TO PAY A PROFESSION TO REMOVE THE ENGINE, AND THE NET DIFFERENCEIN VALUE BETWEEN THE PLFT RECEIVED IN THE INTERIM PERIOD, ALONG WITH THE COST OF INSTALLING AN ENGINE CONFORMING TO THE CONTRACT. PLFT IS ALSO ENTITLED TO RECOVER THE COSTS OF THIS ACTION. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECRED BY THE COURT THA PLFT HAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFT IN THE SUM OF $3,000.00. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLFT HAVE JUDGMENT AGAINST THE DEFT IN THE SUM OF $216.00. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS IS A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER. | |
| 06/26/2009 | CT MINUTE | |
| 07/31/2009 | ORDER | |
| 08/10/2009 | MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL - DEFT | $20.00 |
| (Entry with fee only) | $10.00 | |
| 10% OF CAMA | $1.00 | |
| (Entry with fee only) | $25.00 | |
| (Entry with fee only) | $3.00 | |
| 10% OF AG | $0.30 | |
| 08/18/2009 | PLFT'S RESPONSE TO DEFT'S MOTION FOR NWE TRIAL | |
| 08/27/2009 | DEFT'S RESPONSE TO PLFTS RESPONSE TO DEFTS MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL | |
| 02/18/2010 | PLFT'S APPLICATION FOR HEARING ON DEFT'S MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL | |
| 02/18/2010 | ORDER - PLFT'S MOTION FOR HEARING ON NEW TRIAL IS DENIED. DEFT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IS DENIED. | |
| Grand Total | $275.30 | |
| Date | Time | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 01/20/2009 | STRICKEN/RESET UPON APPLICATION | |
| 01/20/2009 | 9:00am | SHOW CAUSE - Completed: 01/20/2009, Code: X |
| 02/17/2009 | COURT RULING - Completed: 02/17/2009, Code: X | |
| 02/17/2009 | 9:00am | SHOW CAUSE - Completed: 02/17/2009, Code: X |
| 04/21/2009 | 1:30pm | HEARING SET - Completed: 04/21/2009, Code: X |
| 05/15/2009 | RULING - Completed: 05/21/2009, Code: X | |
| 06/02/2009 | 9:00am | TRIAL |
| Date | Description | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 12/23/2008 | Receipt: R1-091568, Received Of: GRAY, GORDON | $166.00 |
| 01/20/2009 | Receipt: R1-092002, Received Of: GRAY, GORDON | $50.00 |
| 08/10/2009 | Receipt: R2-061009, Received Of: PILKINGTON, GILBERT J | $59.30 |
| Grand Total | $275.30 | |